Paying for by-election

Sir, - Every right thinking individual will endorse the suggestion by Mr. P. Radhakrishnan (May 23) that Ms. Jayalalitha be stopped from taking policy decisions till she is duly elected and sworn in as a full-fledged Chief Minister.

The provision for a non-member to head a legislature party must be used in the rarest of rare occasions. In the case of Tamil Nadu, Ms. Jayalalitha may cite the reasons of her disqualification for opting this route. But in the tiny Union Territory of Pondicherry, this rule is abused in a glaring manner and in view of its small size this gross violation had not caught the national focus. After the DMK and the TMC parted company, the Congress could not arrive at a consensus over its Chief Minister for 11 months. So Mr. P. Shanmugam, a non-member was chosen resulting in one sitting MLA vacating his seat, and the Election Commission was forced to spend public money to conduct a by- election. Even assuming that this one time exception to squander public money is permissible, in the just- concluded elections the Chief Minister, Mr. P. Shanmugam was in command and none prevented him from contesting nor denied him the ticket. He opted out on his own.

Now after the elections, the same Mr. P. Shanmugam wants to deny elected legislators a leader of their choice, and is going to use the same ``non-member becoming Chief Minister'' route. The Election Commission which has just conducted the elections to the 30-member Assembly and notified its results, must not spend public money to hold a by-election. If the Congress wants a by- election, it has to meet the expenses from its coffers, or the Chief Minister has to pay for it. The Election Commission should make suitable orders in its rule book.

N. Nandhivarman,

Pondicherry

Sir, - Prof. Radhakrishnan's article was wide ranging in its enumeration of likely consequences. I would like to add that the central point is that the Governor of Tamil Nadu ignored the law as it existed (exists now) when she called Ms. Jayalalitha. While the Governor is free to call anyone including someone outside the legislature, she is wrong in calling someone who cannot enter the legislature for the next six years.

One hopes the High Court hears the PIL petition filed in this connection without waiting for its holiday calender. The American Supreme Court's swift handling of the issues in the recent Presidential election is an example to follow.

M. C. Swaminathan,

Hyderabad

Sir, - The demonstrated conduct of the Election Commission in the case of Ms. Jayalalitha proves that it is not abiding by the settled law of the land nor is it following the prohibitions and limitations imposed on it by the Constitution and the law. The rejection of Ms. Jayalalitha's candidature from contesting the Assembly election is not just and fair in view of the settled law of the Apex Court in the Kesavanand Bharati case in 1973 nor is it in accord with the provisions of Section 8 of the R.P. Act. 1951 providing for disqualification on conviction of certain offences (read with Sec.79 (d) of the R.P. Act. 1951) on the following grounds: citizen's fundamental freedom of speech under Article 19 (1)(a) and voting right under Article 326 of the Constitution are held as indispensable for the performance of our democratic system; accordingly, they are held as the basic- structure of our Constitution being beyond the amending powers of Parliament. Secondly R.P. Act. 1951 section 8 providing for disqualification on conviction for certain offences (read with Sec. 79 (d) providing for the meaning of `electoral rights'): the E.C. on the one hand rejected Ms. Jayalalitha's candidature while on the other hand allowed her to exercise her voting right.

Maj. (Retd.) S. N. Tripathi,

Lucknow

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Palm oil & Malaysia
Next     : Alternative vision